Gene Technology (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2016.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:20): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition and that the opposition will be supporting the bill. Like many pieces of legislation going through parliaments nowadays, this bill is part of a national agreement, and this state legislation reinforces that national agreement. The moment you mention gene technology and genetic engineering, if people do not recoil in horror thinking about the man-fly, the fish with tomato genes or something like that, they get seriously worried about genetic engineering and the associated technology.

I have three science degrees—and I am not boasting; I am just qualifying my opinion—including veterinary science and agricultural science in crops and soils, so I have done a fair bit of genetics and been exposed to a lot of opportunities for genetically-modified organisms to improve the production of both medical and agricultural outputs to improve the lot of the whole human race. To look at gene technology as something that is bad is something that we all need to reassess and try to understand what we are dealing with and where we can go with the appropriate use of gene technology. This is a very, very exciting area and we should not be afraid of it.

Obviously, there are areas where we have had serious issues both in agriculture and, more poignantly, in chemical warfare and bacterial or biological warfare. These are serious issues we need to make sure we are controlling, but the technology we are talking about in this legislation does not go anywhere near that area, although there are other jurisdictions that are very closely monitoring it.

Genetic engineering in animals and plants has been going on for many years, if not hundreds of years. Anybody who has done any genetics at all or who knows anything about Mendelian inheritance and genetics knows that for years and years farmers have been breeding their best bulls with their best cows, and it goes on from there. You are breeding the best with the best. You are slowly improving by genetically modifying because you are picking the best packet of genes and mixing them with the best packet of genes to produce the best offspring. As I said, that has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years.

What we have managed to do now with modern technology is go down to that microscopic level and look at individual genes, map genes and identify genes, both the good genes and the bad genes. Let us remember that there are lots of bad genes that have been identified and, because of gene technology, we are able to improve people's lives, even if for no other reason than identifying a gene which they carry and should be aware of which may predispose them to some form of cancer or other genetically induced disease. The BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene for breast cancer is a classic example. Many women, and I would think most men, would be aware of the genetic influence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes on breast cancer and other forms of cancer in the human system.

We need to make sure that we embrace with open arms the sort of technology that improves the identification of the genomes of both animals and plants, and humans as part of the animal world. I look forward to seeing that improved and embraced by this parliament and by other parliaments around the world. That said, we need to make sure we are controlling the advances, the changes, the investigations and the experimentation that is going on so that unintended consequences do not happen. Those unintended consequences can be as simple as genetically modified crops being inadvertently released into the broader agricultural world and then causing some issues with not only the control of weeds but also those particular crops, possibly affecting markets.

There is medical research that is using genetic engineering and genetic identification, or genotyping. Genotyping is a massive area and it is going on down the road, at SAHMRI, and all over the universities. It is going on at Waite, that wonderful institution, where I studied for a number of years, and they are doing some absolutely marvellous work, in both animal and plant genetics. Improvements in drought tolerance, salt tolerance and vitamin inclusions in plants are happening not only at Waite but all over the world, and we should be looking forward to this and embracing it.

As I said, there are cures available through genetic modification of organisms such as plants—for example, for vitamin A deficiencies. There are too many to mention this morning, but there are so many examples of where we are benefiting from advances in genetic engineering and producing genetically modified organisms that are going to be of great use to us.

If people want to read more about this, and I would encourage them very strongly to do so, they should go to the Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia's website and look at the sections on gene technology regulation. There are four or five pages about how gene technology in Australia is being regulated, how the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator has been set up and how a ministerial council has been put in place to oversee state, territory and commonwealth legislation. That is all based on the original Gene Technology Act 2000, which covers:

...[both] live and viable GMOs, the research, manufacture, production, breeding and import of GMOs. But it does not cover—

this is interesting—

cost/benefit considerations

comparisons with alternative technologies

marketing and marketability

intellectual property

human beings and cloning.

I remember that in this place a number of years ago we talked about some of the stem cell therapies that were around, and some very lively and intense debate went on about stem cell therapy. This is quite different from that. The bill before us today is aimed at improving the control by various jurisdictions of genetically modifiable organisms in order to improve the long-term outcomes from what is happening with our GMOs.

Strict licensing conditions are in place, and there is certainly strong monitoring and enforcement of genetically modified organism release and development. The assessment processes that the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator oversees are very intense. There is public consultation and government consultation, risk assessments and risk management plans are put in place, and certainly there is a lot of public input. The so-called social licence we hear a lot about today is a very important part of assessing the whole process of developing and then, hopefully, using genetically modified organisms to improve our agriculture, medical products and animal sciences.

There are some notes in the briefing paper put out by the Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia that talk about assessing and managing risks. They talk about some of the perceptions out there about genes moving from plants to weeds and GM crops transferring to non-GM crops. I would suggest that people read this brochure; it will settle a lot of minds and clarify a lot of concerns.

The bill before us today, though, is really fairly straightforward. It relates to the gene technology scheme which regulates dealings with genetically modified materials. It does not look at the regulation of genetically modified foods, which is covered by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand, or genetically modified drugs, which is covered by the Therapeutic Goods Act. The scheme covers the use of genes as tools where the end goal is not a food product or drug product. Possible uses include medical research or plant research, as I have said.

In 2011, the commonwealth act was reviewed and 16 recommendations were presented to ministers at the gene technology forum. Of these recommendations, 14 were supported or supported in principle. These recommendations fall within three main categories: the first one is modifications to the operations of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, the second one is minor technical administrative and consequential amendments, and the third is other technical amendments. On 15 August, the commonwealth Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 was passed without amendment by the House of Representatives and the Senate and came into force on 10 March 2016.

The commonwealth bill dealt with five minor technical, administrative and consequential amendments that will have minimal impact on the technical operations of the act. South Australia is a signatory to the national Gene Technology Agreement, an intergovernmental agreement which sets out the understanding between commonwealth, state and territory governments to establish a nationally consistent regulatory scheme. Within the agreement, the Gene Technology (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016 before the house will bring the South Australian Gene Technology Act 2001 into alignment with the commonwealth legislation.

These changes will have minimal impact on the operation of gene technology activities within South Australia, and I am advised that three states have applied agreed provisions by reference to the national law and that three state parliaments currently have bills before them. While the bill deals with five recommendations from the 2011 review which provide minor administrative changes to the scheme, a further six recommendations have been implemented by the Office of the Gene Regulator without the need for legislative change. Three more significant recommendations are still to be considered further by the ministerial council. With that contribution, I support the bill.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (11:31): I rise in support of the Gene Technology (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016, which amends the South Australian Gene Technology Act 2001. It is not often that a piece of legislation or, indeed, this subject matter gets debated in this house so I will take the opportunity to go through the regulatory regime and the importance of having a risk-based regulatory system in place in this area of public policy. The Gene Technology Act 2001 is the South Australian component of the nationally consistent regulatory scheme for gene technology in Australia.

The act aims to protect the health and safety of people and the environment by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene technology and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings in genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The act establishes a consistent national regulatory framework to provide an efficient and effective system for the application of gene technologies that operate in conjunction with other commonwealth and state regulatory schemes relevant to GMOs and products.

In 2000, a regulatory framework was established with the Gene Technology Regulator, who is responsible for making the majority of decisions relating to gene technology. The regulator is an independent statutory office holder and is not subject to direction by anyone in relation to the performance of functions, in particular whether or not to grant a GMO licence with or without conditions. The regulator is responsible for the decisions on particular applications, is subject to guidance at a general level from the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology and is ultimately responsible to the parliament.

In 2011, the commonwealth Department of Health commissioned a review of the commonwealth act on behalf the forum, of which the health minister is a member. This review is the second statutory review of the gene technology scheme, the first being undertaken in 2007. The 2011 review investigated three areas: firstly, emerging trends and international developments in biotechnology and its regulation; secondly, the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the act consistently across the national scheme for gene technology regulation in Australia; and, thirdly, the interface between this act and other acts and schemes for regulation of related entities throughout the commonwealth.

The review found that overall the act and the regulator were operating very well. The Gene Technology Regulator was found to be performing its functions in a very efficient manner. The review also noted that current consultation processes in relation to applications under the act were also working well; however, it did make 16 recommendations. Of those, 14 were accepted by the ministerial forum. The bill seeks to amend the act to implement five of those 14 recommendations. These five were all agreed to by the ministerial forum.

They are minor and technical amendments that enhance the overall operation of the regulatory scheme without changing the underlying policy intent. The five recommendations have been incorporated into the commonwealth act; therefore, to ensure that South Australia remains aligned with the national scheme and in accordance with the national Gene Technology Agreement, they should be adopted into the South Australian Gene Technology Act.

'Gene technology' refers to a number of methods whereby genetic material (DNA) in the cells of target organisms is altered in a very specific way. Gene technology works because there is a remarkable similarity between the central biochemical systems of plants, animals, bacteria and fungi. The potential benefits from the application of gene technology include more efficient use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals; savings in energy inputs to farm production; and the recovery of degraded land, or being able to grow specific crops on land that would previously not have been viable. It also enables research into the causes of diseases and improved biopharmaceuticals and bioremediation.

However, the characteristics of gene technology which produce many of the benefits also cause concerns in the community, including unknown long-term health consequences, allergic reactions and generation of weeds or pests. Of course, there are also broader concerns in this area about using gene technology, including some of the ethical, social and moral concerns about the impacts of humans playing God. This is why it is essential that we have rigorous risk-based regulatory systems in place. Legal responsibility for gene technology regulation is vested in many regulatory bodies depending on the intended use of the relevant genetic technology. For example, genetically modified foods are regulated under state and territory food acts and the Food Standards Code.

Therapeutic goods and human gene therapy are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Agricultural and veterinary chemicals are regulated by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and states and territories. Industrial chemicals are regulated by the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) and imports and exports of GMOs or GM products are regulated under the Quarantine Act and the Imported Food Control Act, amongst other pieces of legislation. As you can see, it is very well regulated.

In a very simplistic manner, gene technology processes are regulated by the national gene technology scheme, whereas the products that result from these activities are further regulated by the specific agencies, as previously mentioned. The vast majority of research is conducted with food and textile plant crops. The breeding of grains and new cultivars for our farmers is nowadays intrinsically linked with our ability to alter the gene sequences. It might be achieved by artificial means or it might be achieved, as has always been done, by traditional breeding techniques. It is simply another tool that our producers can use to achieve an outcome that has been sought through more traditional methods for thousands of years.

Obviously, anything coming out of the gene technology pool should be monitored and approved on a case-by-case basis. That is why we have regulation. It is the same situation with a new chemical, for instance. We should only approve the use of a new chemical if it is not going to cause environmental damage or create safety issues. New substances or processes that are registered for use should be properly checked, and of course gene technology is no different. There are many GMOs that are enormously successful and are now embedded in our society and accepted worldwide and in Australia.

The use of GM cotton has reduced pesticide and herbicide use by more than 50 per cent. This makes a significant contribution to looking after our environment. A Chinese study completed in 2012 found that the use of GM cotton halved the amount of chemical application and doubled the number of ladybirds, so it is a good news story. Within South Australia, the risks to markets are managed by the conditions applied by the crops management act 2005. This enables the growing of food crops in South Australia, providing an exemption permit is granted by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. This act makes no reference to potential health or environmental impacts, so it falls outside the scope of the national scheme and has no relevance to the bill being discussed today. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:39): I rise to speak to the Gene Technology (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016. I note that the commonwealth Gene Technology Act came into being in 2000 and that the national gene technology regulatory system came into force in Australia in June 2001. Its aim is to identify and manage risks to human health and the environment posed by, or as a result of, gene technology.

The Gene Technology Act created the regulatory office, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, within the federal government. This office is overseen by an independent Gene Technology Regulator whose role is to administer the laws and make decisions relating to gene technology research and development in Australia. The act also created a ministerial council comprising the commonwealth health minister and ministers from each state and territory to provide broad direction and regulatory guidance to the regulator.

The bill also relates to the gene technology scheme, which regulates dealings with genetically modified material. It does not look directly at the regulation of genetically modified food, which is dealt with by Food Standards Australia New Zealand, or genetically modified drugs, which is dealt with by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The scheme covers the use of genes as tools, and possible uses include medical research and plant research.

In 2011, the commonwealth act was reviewed and 16 recommendations were presented to ministers at the gene technology forum. Of these recommendations, 14 were supported, or supported in principle. These recommendations fall within three main categories:

1. Modifications to the operations of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator;

2. Minor technical, administrative and consequential amendments; and

3. Other technical amendments.

In August 2015, the commonwealth Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 was passed without amendment by the House of Representatives and the Senate and came into force on 10 March 2016. The commonwealth bill dealt with five minor technical, administrative and consequential amendments that have minimal impact on the technical operation of the act.

It is to be noted that South Australia is a signatory to the national Gene Technology Agreement, an intergovernmental agreement, which sets out the understanding between the commonwealth, state and territory governments to establish a nationally consistent regulatory scheme. Within this agreement, the Gene Technology (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016 before the house will bring the South Australian Gene Technology Act 2001 into alignment with the commonwealth legislation.

We have been informed that these changes will have minimal impact on the operation of gene technology activities within South Australia. We have been advised that three states have applied agreed provisions by reference to the national law and that three state parliaments currently have bills before them. This bill deals with the five recommendations from the 2011 review, which provide minor administrative changes to the scheme. A further six recommendations have been implemented by the office of the regulator, without the need for legislative change. Three more significant recommendations are still to be considered further by the ministerial council.

I note from some of the comments during the second reading debate that the agreement is, ultimately, to ensure a national fulfilment of the principles of the gene technology legislation to protect the health and safety of people and protect the environment. This is achieved by identifying risks posed by, or as a result of, gene technology, and by managing those risks through regulation or certain dealings, which include the manipulation, storage, transfer or disposal of genetically modified organisms.

It has been a long debate, certainly in South Australia, on whether or not to have genetically modified canola, for instance, grown in this state. I note that there is a moratorium until 2019, yet over previous years we have seen the Eastern States and Western Australia have the ability to grow genetically modified canola. We have this absurd situation where, if the seed is grown on our side of the country, whether it is in Victoria or New South Wales—although I understand there are some licences to grow seed in Mount Gambier, South Australia—that seed has to be transported around through the Northern Territory to get to Western Australia because you need fresh seed every year to grow genetically modified canola.

There has been some debate about how useful genetically modified canola is. The feedback I have received from farmers in states that have been utilising this technology is that certainly in the bad drought year in Western Australia, which was in the last five years, I believe, for some farms it was the only crop that yielded because they could dry sow it early. It took every drop of rain, and they sprayed weeds with Roundup where the rest of their crops failed. A lot of comparisons are made about whether there is a yield potential and a price differential. I do not think the price differential, especially, has ever been proven. We learnt on the select committee into the grain industry, when we went to Canada, that their canola is co-mingled with either GM canola or other canola that is grown—

An honourable member: Conventional.

Mr PEDERICK: Conventional canola—thank you. That is certainly co-mingled, and it does not harm their markets into Japan, for instance, because that is the way they have done it for years and continue to do it.

There has been a lot of discussion about a benefit cost or a price benefit through not having genetically modified canola as a tool, but I do not think it has ever been proven. I have never had any evidence put before me. Interestingly, there is an ongoing court case in Western Australia at Kojonup (I am not sure whether it is up to the appeal stage), and it was certainly something that I raised five years ago with the minister and his staff in Western Australia at the time about what was happening with that. They had some interesting insights into how that supposed contamination came about. Sometimes there are other forces at play. It has caused a lot of grief. It has torn apart a community, and I think it has helped to destroy the marriage of one couple at least. This case of an organic farm allegedly being contaminated with genetically modified canola has caused a lot of headaches in the small regional community.

It is interesting how the debate has progressed over time. Certainly, a lot of people accept soy as a product. From what I am told, 99 per cent of soy products in the world are genetically modified. Certainly, in the health scheme of things, insulin would not be around if it was not for genetic modification. In the member for Fisher's contribution, she talked about cotton, which is Bt cotton, genetically modified cotton. Farmers can restrict insecticide sprays by eight to 10 times. That is a massive saving for a farmer.

The member for Flinders will be able to help me if I am off the mark, but I think it is now around $18 a hectare just to hire planes without chemicals. That is a huge cost if you have to fly the plane over a crop, let alone pay for the appropriate chemical, and in this case it will be an insecticide, and insecticides are expensive and they do not take prisoners. As we have heard, there is a recovery rate with regard to ladybirds another species; they can get on with their life and play their part in nature.

Some of the issues for me include the world-leading research done at the Waite Research Institute, part of the University of Adelaide, where they have a plant accelerator. From what I understand, one side is dedicated to genetically modified breeding and the other side to the regular breeding of crops. It is interesting that this work still goes on. I do not know if it has slowed down at all with the current moratorium in South Australia, but that work goes on in this state and I am sure that they need a licence for that. The minister may be able to come back with a response in his contribution about what arrangements are happening there.

Also, from what I understand—and I am happy for the minister to correct me if I am wrong—there are licences for some of the major companies growing genetically modified canola seed in the Mount Gambier area still. I would be interested in comments regarding that and, depending on what comes back, we may go into committee.

You certainly hear a lot of things regarding growing genetically modified canola. We have hundreds of kilometres of the state border up alongside Victoria, and I am sure there are farmers who have land on either side of the border who can grow genetically modified canola on one side and not on the other. There are a few rumours circulating at the moment that there may have been some seed brought into South Australia. I must say that it is only a rumour at this stage. However, I would be interested in knowing how the government would manage that under the regulatory scheme and what testing can be done and what plant testing provisions there are in the case of a plant like canola to detect if it is actually genetically modified or not.

Certainly, with regard to the legislation in the bill, I notice that part 5 deals with all the arrangements around the licensing system, around the application program, how the regulator interacts with applicants and, further down, how genetically modified material might interact with the local environment. Clauses 5 and 6 amend section 46A and section 49. Section 49 deals with issues around the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence, which are limited to one or more of the following for purposes relating to disposing of a GMO, so this is about the disposal process. This links with the following:

(i) conducting experiments with the GMO;

(ii) propagating the GMO;

(iii) growing, raising or culturing the GMO;

(iv) transporting the GMO;

(v) any other dealings to be undertaken for the purposes of, or for purposes relating to, disposing of the GMO…

I would certainly be interested in some of the responses on how much genetically modified material is grown in this state, especially with regard to propagating seed whether it is by Monsanto or Bayer, which are both still live companies I am assuming. There have been a few amalgamations proposed recently with some—

Mr Treloar: It's hard to keep up.

Mr PEDERICK: —yes—chemical companies in the field. My understanding is that it does happen in this state and certainly there is work done at the Waite Institute. Across the world, there is some debate about whether genetically modified wheat would be useful. I think there is a small amount of it grown around the place, but I think it is on another level where it is grown with a grass. Obviously, canola has a broad leaf and there is a different regime of managing weeds with a broad leaf or with self-sown plants the year after that crop.

I see genetically modified plant breeding and how that has come into play over time as really, in the main, an acceleration of getting through the generations of the crossbreeding of plants. It is blown up at times to be something far more than that. It does take out a lot of the time to get through where you get varieties that have certain traits. Into the future there is probably a lot of potential in both drought-tolerant and saline-tolerant crops throughout the country, and that would certainly be beneficial for some farmers to use in their toolbox in the cropping periods.

There are a few questions around the licences. How many licences are put out through South Australia for the propagation of material? There are also other issues around conducting the use of genetically modified material, whether it is through the propagation or the disposal of that material. As I said earlier, I would also be interested to know whether there was a reasonably simple method of genetic testing that could test whether a product is actually modified material, so that could be identified in a timely manner without waiting for a lab test to come back. Then it could be dealt with quickly instead of waiting a longer time.

There certainly have been some benefits from genetic modification. It does create a lot of debate, but one thing about it is that if growing genetically modified canola were ever authorised in this state it would not make it compulsory to grow it; that is an option people can take up. It would have to be managed through the storage systems, as it has been across the world as a matter of course with their cropping programs. With those few words—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I could keep going, but that will do. On this side of the house we support the bill, and I will be interested in the minister's response.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:57): I rise, from this side of the house as well, to support the bill and suggest that it is an extremely exciting time in human history to be alive. It is an extremely exciting time to be here in this place this morning, listening to the debate on gene technology.

I do not allude to the exciting time in human history lightly because, for the first time ever, we have been able to map the genomes not just of ourselves but of every living plant and animal on the planet. Of course, who knows what that might mean or what might come from that, but we will certainly need some management and some control around the developments that occur. Ultimately, it will give us a much bigger impact on the way we treat disease, our survivability as a species, and the way we manage our agricultural production system, which has already been alluded to by the member for Hammond and also by the member for Fisher in their contributions today.

This bill goes at least part way toward managing and controlling the development of the technology. Australia's national gene technology regulatory system came into force in June 2001 through the Gene Technology Act. It aims to identify and manage any risks to human health and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Way back in 2001, this technology was in its infancy, but the recognition was there that legislation had to be put in place around its development.

The Gene Technology Act created the regulatory office, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, within the federal government. This office is overseen by an independent Gene Technology Regulator, whose role it is to administer the laws and make decisions relating to gene technology research and development across Australia. The act also created a ministerial council, comprising the commonwealth health minister and ministers from each state and territory, to provide broad direction and regulatory guidance to the regulator.

The bill relates to the gene technology scheme, which regulates dealings with genetically modified material. The scheme quite specifically does not look at the regulation of genetically modified food or genetically modified drugs; however, it covers the use of genes as tools where the end goal is not a food product or a drug product. Possible uses include medical research or plant research.

Those of us in this place who have been involved with agricultural systems would have had to be hiding under a rock over the last 20 years not to realise that significant changes are going on around the world in our agricultural systems. In 2002, I was fortunate enough to travel as a Nuffield Scholar. I visited the United States where some of the larger chemical companies were taking out patents on their genetic developments, which is in itself a discussion for another day. It was a very exciting time and farmers in North America were adopting quite quickly Roundup Ready corn and also Bt corn, which, as the member for Fisher suggested—

Mr Pederick: Cotton.

Mr TRELOAR: I will get to cotton, Peds. I want to talk about corn first. It meant that weed control within these crops was much simpler and much more effective. It essentially meant that the plants themselves were resistant to glyphosate, which is the major component of the labelled chemical Roundup.

These developments were embraced quickly by North American farmers and within a very short time a significant acreage in North America was assigned to Roundup Ready corn. Roundup Ready soy beans was another major crop. Also, in Australia, Bt cotton was developed and grown. As the member for Hammond indicated, it significantly reduced the amount of chemical applications that were required because inherent in this genetically engineered variety was an insect resistance that made it much less susceptible to chemical attack.

It has been a rocky road and, in this state, we still have a moratorium on the growing and production of genetically engineered crops. It is probably a pity in a way that the focus has been on the farming systems themselves. I think there will come a time in the very near future when crops and grains are produced that have a beneficial aspect to human health. As we speak, there are developments in canola where there is an increased level of omega-3 bred into the grain.

Of course, we all know, via fish, how important omega-3 is to human health, and possibly a way of we as humans ingesting more omega-3 and gaining the benefits of that is through the genetically engineered canola crop. Another example that has been widespread across Asia is GM rice. Rice, of course, is the most widely grown—

Mr Pederick: Golden Rice.

Mr TRELOAR: Golden Rice. Rice is the most widely grown cereal in the world. Probably a quarter of the world's population relies on rice for its sustenance. In 2002, as I mentioned, I was travelling and studying under a farming scholarship. It was exciting because the genomes of these plants were being mapped at the time. They did not have the final results but I know that, within the last 10 years, they have finally managed to map the human genome and also the genomes of a number of the more significant cultivars around the world.

The house may be interested to know that there are around 19,000 or 20,000 genes in a human being, which puts us somewhere in between corn and wheat. It sounds a lot but, in fact, corn has around 12,000 genes within its genetic make-up and wheat has an extraordinary 100,000 genes. There are variations on that through the number of chromosomes, of course, but it is rather humbling to think that we, as a species, sit somewhere between corn and wheat. It really brings it back to a very base level.

As I said, it is an exciting time. We do support this bill because, in a way, it will foster the further research and further development of this very exciting technology. We are probably, as a species, on the cusp of some great things as a result of this. It is an exciting time to be alive, and I would suggest, Peds, that it is also an exciting time to be a farmer.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (12:05): I thank members for their wide-ranging contributions. Many of the issues raised do not actually go to this bill but are really in connection with the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004. I am more than happy to take questions raised to the house, in particular by the member for Hammond, and speak to the Minister for Agriculture, who has responsibility for that bill, and get answers to his questions. I thank all members for their contributions and commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (12:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.